In a blog post, the president of the BSA expressed concerns that the Stop …

Share this story

After initially coming out in favor of the Stop Online Piracy Act, the controversial and sweeping copyright protection measure now moving through Congress, the Business Software Alliance now seems to be reversing itself as the legislation progresses. In a blog post on the BSA's website today, BSA president and CEO Robert Holleyman expressed concern about the direction SOPA is taking and its potential impact beyond going after criminal infringement, and urged Congress to make changes to the bill.

"Valid and important questions have been raised about the bill," Holleyman wrote. "As it now stands [ ] it could sweep in more than just truly egregious actors. Due process, free speech, and privacy are rights cannot be compromised."

He also noted the potential impact of filtering and monitoring provisions being proposed as part of SOPA, and wrote that the security and reliability of the Internet might suffer from unintended consequences. "BSA has long stood against filtering or monitoring the Internet," he stated. He urged the House Judiciary Committee to tighten and narrow the scope of the bill's language and to address "reasonable questions" about the potential filtering provisions.

SOPA currently contains provisions that would require Internet service providers to block access to foreign sites that infringe on copyright material, "including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address." Search engine providers would be required to block infringing sites from appearing in their results, and ad networks and payment processors would also have to stop working with blacklisted sites.

Holleyman's comments today come less than a month after he issued a press release hailing SOPA—though that initial praise did come with some moderation. "As Congress continues its work on this legislation," Holleyman said in October, "it will be important to strike the right balance between two sets of considerations — enabling effective action against online pirates, while also ensuring the law does not impede technology innovation or the evolution of software and the Internet, which are critical engines for future economic growth."

When even the BSA, a powerful and staunchly pro-copyright-enforcement body, thinks a bill like this goes way too far, it's bad news for SOPA backers in the media business.

Share this story

Sean Gallagher
Sean is Ars Technica's IT and National Security Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland. Emailsean.gallagher@arstechnica.com//Twitter@thepacketrat

56 Reader Comments

Ah yes, the DMCA, the original internet killer. Those certainly were the days of wine and roses pre-DMCA before the internet was killed just like Big Tech predicted...lol

I'll take it that you've never been the victim of an improper DMCA notice.

I'll take it that you've never had to hire additional staff to send over 10,000 (proper) DMCA takedown requests, most of them to the same handful of websites, many of them concerning the same uploaders re-upping the same content over and over and over and over and over; serial infringers who currently face ZERO practical consequences for their actions.

And it's exactly what countless other small, medium, and large content creators are dealing with too.

Your problem seems rather trivial in comparison.

However, I certainly wouldn't oppose drastically harsher penalties for fraudulent takedown requests in exchange for a banning of repeat infringers clause and a HASH filter requirement similar to what Youtube implemented. Whaddaya say, do we have a deal?

Ah yes, the DMCA, the original internet killer. Those certainly were the days of wine and roses pre-DMCA before the internet was killed just like Big Tech predicted...lol

I'll take it that you've never been the victim of an improper DMCA notice.

I'll take it that you've never had to hire additional staff to send over 10,000 (proper) DMCA takedown requests, most of them to the same handful of websites, many of them concerning the same uploaders re-upping the same content over and over and over and over and over; serial infringers who currently face ZERO practical consequences for their actions.

How in the hell are those companies supposed to know what is copyrighted or not? Also, some of your DMCA notices might run afoul of the fact that many people who download those things are ALREADY paying for your products in various ways:

Movies via a cable TV subscription.Music via a cable TV subscription, which includes CD quality music channels and even some On-Demand music.Movies via a internet subscription, which Comcast is offering free movies and music online through various deals with content companies.

Need I keep on going here?

The fact is that you wish to have people pay INFINITE times for your content whenever they get a new device. Sorry, but that is not going to play anymore, people are only going to pay ONCE for your products, even if it is INDIRECTLY once.

You fit into the same category with the whiners who were bitching back in the day about record-able tapes killing their business and re-writable CD's and DVD's killing their business.

Ah yes, the DMCA, the original internet killer. Those certainly were the days of wine and roses pre-DMCA before the internet was killed just like Big Tech predicted...lol

I'll take it that you've never been the victim of an improper DMCA notice.

I'll take it that you've never had to hire additional staff to send over 10,000 (proper) DMCA takedown requests, most of them to the same handful of websites, many of them concerning the same uploaders re-upping the same content over and over and over and over and over; serial infringers who currently face ZERO practical consequences for their actions.

And it's exactly what countless other small, medium, and large content creators are dealing with too.

Your problem seems rather trivial in comparison.

However, I certainly wouldn't oppose drastically harsher penalties for fraudulent takedown requests in exchange for a banning of repeat infringers clause and a HASH filter requirement similar to what Youtube implemented. Whaddaya say, do we have a deal?

In addition to the excellent response by Abresh above, I think the MINIMUM false takedown request penalty should be at least 10x-100x higher than the MAXIMUM infringement penalty. Perhaps something like 10^n time higher, where N is the total number of false takedown requests sent in the past 30 days. Something that would make a company worth hundreds of millions think twice about carpet bombing mom filming her kid with the radio in the background, who care barely afford an attorney.

Judging from all the rhetoric I'm seeing, wouldn't somebody take this law before the courts as unconstitutional as soon as it was signed?

Probably. Still, do we really want it to get that far? Someone would have to pay for that court case. Besides, it's good to let Congress know that they can't always sneak in legislation just because the mainstream press doesn't want to cover it.

I have to say though, more than anything else, this as completely KILLED any confidence I had in the media. So much coverage on the Penn State thing yet there's a bill in Congress that infringes on free speech, privacy... All I saw in the mainstream were a few blogs and/or editorials...

Just like the DMCA, the MPAA and RIAA will eventually make small concessions until the tech industry caves. In their self-destructive delusion that control==profit, they will continue to use their media might and money to push this through in some form or another. It doesn't matter if it takes a year or a decade, they'll keep at it until they get what they want.

Unfortunately I'm going to have to agree with you. It's sad, but it's been proven quite true in recent history.

I think the MINIMUM false takedown request penalty should be at least 10x-100x higher than the MAXIMUM infringement penalty. Perhaps something like 10^n time higher, where N is the total number of false takedown requests sent in the past 30 days. Something that would make a company worth hundreds of millions think twice about carpet bombing mom filming her kid with the radio in the background, who care barely afford an attorney.

Make this penalty apply to both the content producer and the law firm who chooses to represent them, and now we have a deal. I think all monies collected should go directly towards the national debt. I estimate we'd have it paid off by 2015 or so if this policy were implemented.

Make this penalty apply to both the content producer and the law firm who chooses to represent them, and now we have a deal. I think all monies collected should go directly towards the national debt. I estimate we'd have it paid off by 2015 or so if this policy were implemented.

Ah yes, the DMCA, the original internet killer. Those certainly were the days of wine and roses pre-DMCA before the internet was killed just like Big Tech predicted...lol

I'll take it that you've never been the victim of an improper DMCA notice.

I'll take it that you've never had to hire additional staff to send over 10,000 (proper) DMCA takedown requests, most of them to the same handful of websites, many of them concerning the same uploaders re-upping the same content over and over and over and over and over; serial infringers who currently face ZERO practical consequences for their actions.

And it's exactly what countless other small, medium, and large content creators are dealing with too.

Right, because taxpayers/websites should pay to protect the profits of an industry thats becoming irrelevant. Websites don't have a magic wand they can wave to tell what is infringing. Wanting the websites to filter them creates more costs for the websites (hiring extra coders/support, more processing/space requirements etc). Why should the websites have to pay to protect other people's property? Those costs should be on the property owners.

The way I read this, I get the impression that the BSA isn't actually against SOPA, so much as they want some shaving around the edges so that their members don't get tripped-up by their own handiwork. I somehow doubt they are in any way concerned about anyone in the general public running afoul of SOPA.

In addition to the excellent response by Abresh above, I think the MINIMUM false takedown request penalty should be at least 10x-100x higher than the MAXIMUM infringement penalty. Perhaps something like 10^n time higher, where N is the total number of false takedown requests sent in the past 30 days. Something that would make a company worth hundreds of millions think twice about carpet bombing mom filming her kid with the radio in the background, who care barely afford an attorney.

I don't know about the minimum sentence, but the maximum sentence for sending a false takedown request is 5 years in prison for committing perjury.

Just like the DMCA, the MPAA and RIAA will eventually make small concessions until the tech industry caves. In their self-destructive delusion that control==profit, they will continue to use their media might and money to push this through in some form or another. It doesn't matter if it takes a year or a decade, they'll keep at it until they get what they want.

Unfortunately I'm going to have to agree with you. It's sad, but it's been proven quite true in recent history.

It isn't a delusion that control==profit because control will eliminate competition and make an absolute monopoly. Luckily DRM doesn't work unless we legislate creating a whole new computer architecture.

Rights holders want DRM and anti-circumvention laws not to eliminate piracy (though that would be a happy side effect for them) but to eliminate the legitimate forms of sharing that the First Sale Doctrine and Libraries allow such as lending, renting and used sales. We are already seeing this with digital sales, DLC and online passes. If they are able to achieve this then they will have an absolute monopoly on supply and completely skew market forces by eliminating all forms of competition.

Ah yes, the DMCA, the original internet killer. Those certainly were the days of wine and roses pre-DMCA before the internet was killed just like Big Tech predicted...lol

I'll take it that you've never been the victim of an improper DMCA notice.

I'll take it that you've never had to hire additional staff to send over 10,000 (proper) DMCA takedown requests, most of them to the same handful of websites, many of them concerning the same uploaders re-upping the same content over and over and over and over and over; serial infringers who currently face ZERO practical consequences for their actions.

We are sorry that your business model is now obsolete; please get off the Internet to make room for the rest of us.

Freetopia is back! Hurray! I missed you, Freetopia. You were always dependable when it came to toeing the party line for some of the vilest most ethically despicable businesses on the planet. And now, here you are again, spouting the same old predictable noise. It's like...all is finally right with the world. The sky is blue again. The oceans salty. The air has that tangy smell of burnt hydrocarbons and the homeless guy is back on the corner trying to get enough money for his next heroin fix.

I have been waiting so long to say this! I’m positively giddy.

Freetopia, sir, and all you represent I would like you please take a moment to consider a request from a humble citizen of the world who loves consuming media, actually likes to pay for media, and also creates media.

For the love of all that is holy to anyone, anywhere, please fold your useless, worthless, self-entitled, archaic, selfish, repellent and parasitic middleman companies and leave the citizens of this planet alone. Please, please, please.. You aren’t wanted any more. Period.

I don’t need you, I’ve got Amazon. I don’t need you, I have app stores. I don’t need you, I have a hundred – a thousand – ways to self promote and self publish my works. I have so much goddamned work falling out of the sky at me that I am having to direct clients to competitors because I can’t handle it.

You aren’t needed to distribute media. You have utterly and abjectly failed to comprehend the basics of digital distribution, leading many of your own star artists to abandon you the instant their contracts are up because they actually want their works to reach their audience, and you simply can’t seem to provide that.

You aren’t needed to market media. You are mediocre in your marketing; you have so spectacularly failed to understand how to interact with the public that your marketing alienates people almost as fast as your business practices. There are a squillion indie marketing/SEO/IPM firms out there that do a better job than traditional media ever will. Your failure to adapt has resulted in a failure to be relevant.

You aren’t needed to invest in media. You are timid in your investments – dinosaur media sticks with what is known and proven, not realising that a million “me too” variations on a well rehearsed theme no longer cut it. Meanwhile, indies are appearing that take risks, tackle new frontiers and profit gloriously because you simply can’t compete. You can’t even contemplate competing because the old guard running your dead empire is stuck in the past, focused on the forms and styles that made money in the past. That old guard hasn’t shuffled off and died yet. Until they do, you’re screwed.

The only thing you do is sit on your mountain of old copyrights and bitch and moan that people are starting to imagine a world without you. To bad. You shouldn’t have those copyrights anymore. You don’t deserve them. You don’t use them wisely. You don’t give back to society. You aren’t worthy of the privilege that society has afforded you by extending your copyrights.

So just die already. Your entire, worthless middle-man industry. We don’t need you. We don’t want you. And we sure as hell are better off without you.

Nope. I had it right the first time - thanks for trying though! The negative effects of SOPA on DNSSEC have been repeatedly raised both by the tech industry and those within the government who don't have their heads in the sand. Those tech "parasites" actually know what they're talking about unlike the supporters of SOPA.